Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
isn't moderating the list randy's perogative as WG chair? excluding relevant input is not the perogatie of the chair.
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
Once again: Bush is (1) subjecting a huge number of legitimate messages to manual review and (2) silently discarding many of these legitimate messages, apparently at a rate of hundreds per year (not counting mine). Both #1 and #2 are unacceptable. I want the manual reviews _eliminated_. If a message isn't posted immediately, it must be bounced, with a clear explanation of how to have it posted without Bush's intervention. If the IETF documentation doesn't make sufficiently clear that Bush's behavior is unacceptable, that documentation also has to be fixed. ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
[cc's trimmed] Regardless of the specifics of this case, I think a good rule would be to say that all bounced messages on any IETF list MUST be archived on a separate 'bounced' list. To whom would this suggestion best be directed? On 27 Nov 2002, D. J. Bernstein wrote: Once again: Bush is (1) subjecting a huge number of legitimate messages to manual review and (2) silently discarding many of these legitimate messages, apparently at a rate of hundreds per year (not counting mine). Both #1 and #2 are unacceptable. I want the manual reviews _eliminated_. If a message isn't posted immediately, it must be bounced, with a clear explanation of how to have it posted without Bush's intervention. If the IETF documentation doesn't make sufficiently clear that Bush's behavior is unacceptable, that documentation also has to be fixed. ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago -- Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED] U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm --It's hot here.--
new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You)
Hi, vint.c where are these statistics from - I cannot believe that vint.c more than a few percent of the net uses non-USG root. joe.b The last poll I conducted on the dns showed at least 5%. joe.b But that was a few years ago. The 30% comes from various joe.b discussions we had concerning new.net. pekka.s I don't think any source related to new.net regarding pekka.s this can be treated as reliable. valdis It's called Snake Oil, Joe H? At the risk of feeding a diversionary thread, it does seem appropriate to address the question of the number of Internet users who can see New.net's domain names. First, Vint is technically correct regarding non-USG roots. I can't speak to other roots, but most Internet users who can see/access New.net domains do so either (a) via recursives that rely on USG-root but augment with NN domains, or (b) user machines that have the NN client plugin (which still relies on the USG-root). So, New.net does not contribute significantly to the use of a non-USG root. But, this is clearly a technical minutia that will, no doubt, result in the usual excessive amount of debate! As to the number of users: Yes, the number published on the New.net website (~150M users) is an estimate that we believe to be correct, and an explanation of how it is derived is publicly available on the New.net website. I have included the text of this discussion at the end of this message. For what it's worth, I questioned these numbers when I arrived at New.net and we are in the process of auditing them. Initial findings reveal some factors that will increase the number and some factors that will decrease it. I don't know exactly where it will net out (no pun intended), but I am confident that the number is not off by an order of magnitude (as many nay-sayers might suggest). With the exception of the user base(s) from New.net's larger ISP partners, it should not be a surprise that much of the underlying information is not publicly available. As is common in many businesses, we are working with PriceWaterhouseCoopers on a proposal to audit and certify the output of our methodology as well as the underlying data. As New.net continues to grow, this should provide additional confidence in the user numbers and still provide protection for sensitive information (both our own information and that of our partners that is under NDA). The initiative with PWC is just getting off the ground; I expect these wheels will take several weeks to run their course. If you're interested, I'm certain the final report will be announced on the New.net website. Any of you who have measured/estimated any aspect of a system that is as large or as dynamic as the Internet, know well that there is considerable complexity behind any of these numbers (which involves an understanding of the scope, measurement assumptions, etc). Hence, it is somewhat surprising to see the random pot shots taken on this list, with little substantiation for the doubts (other than typical conspiracy theories and knee jerk reaction to New.net in general). In reality, I believe you would be hard pressed to find any statistic regarding the number of users on (or their usage of) the Internet that is significantly more accurate than the numbers New.net provides about its user base. Again, like most marketing statistics about such a broad measure of the Internet, we could engage in considerable academic debate about the best way to measure it -- I'll be glad to do so over beers when I next run into you. In the meantime, I am hopeful our audited numbers will be available sooner rather than later. Please feel free to contact me about any technical issues you may have regarding New.net. Regards, Steve Hotz, CTO New.net Here is information about user count available as a link from the New.net home page ... New.net bases its estimate of total users with access on two numbers: 1) the number of ISP accounts with access as reported by New.net activated ISP partners (for free ISP partners, New.net uses the ISPs reported 30 day active number); and 2) users who can access New.net domain name extensions because they have activated their browsers by downloading our plug-in. These raw numbers, which represent either ISP accounts or PCs with access, are adjusted to reflect a conservative estimate of the actual number of people accessing the Internet via these sources. In the case of ISP accounts the number is adjusted based on information from the Department of Commerce study Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, A Report on Americans Access to Technology Tools and other sources which estimate 2.1 users per household. For our calculation we conservatively assume all ISP accounts are residential accounts despite the fact that in reality many accounts are corporate accounts with much higher numbers of users per account. In the case of client downloads in the US, the number is also adjusted based upon information from the same
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did NotTell You)
Steve, On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Steve Hotz wrote: H? At the risk of feeding a diversionary thread, it does seem appropriate to address the question of the number of Internet users who can see New.net's domain names. [ many lines of self gratification trimmed ] I don't believe the topic to be relivant to this list, butI do have a suggestion for you... turn off the new.net root servers and see if any press gets written about the event. When you get some press, then you'll know some folks can see you servers, until then they [the new.net servers] probably don't matter. best, -rick
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
Hi - Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:50:23 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Regardless of the specifics of this case, I think a good rule would be to say that all bounced messages on any IETF list MUST be archived on a separate 'bounced' list. To whom would this suggestion best be directed? ... As someone who has maintained a couple of WG mailing lists for several years, I'd object to the imposition of such a requirement. The amount of spam, especially *large* (megabyte or more) viral messages, directed at WG mailing lists makes keeping all the trash a highly unattractive proposition. (Much of the viral spam I see bears the forged addresses of legitimate subscribers, so I have to resort to other mechanisms to keep the lists clean.) -- Randy Presuhn BMC Software, Inc. SJC-1.3141 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2141 North First Street Tel: +1 408 546-1006 San José, California 95131 USA -- My opinions and BMC's are independent variables. --
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You)
Translation: To test your accuracy, try to commit suicide. If you succeed, your accuracy is proven. If you fail, your estimates are false;-)... (So perhaps suicide is a good idea in any case). It is very clear to me that this is a silly place to argue about this topic. Enjoy your ride;-)...\Stef At 9:21 AM -0800 11/27/02, Rick Wesson wrote: Steve, On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Steve Hotz wrote: H? At the risk of feeding a diversionary thread, it does seem appropriate to address the question of the number of Internet users who can see New.net's domain names. [ many lines of self gratification trimmed ] I don't believe the topic to be relivant to this list, butI do have a suggestion for you... turn off the new.net root servers and see if any press gets written about the event. When you get some press, then you'll know some folks can see you servers, until then they [the new.net servers] probably don't matter. best, -rick
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You)
Steve, Wednesday, November 27, 2002, 8:47:53 AM, you wrote: Steve most Internet users who Steve can see/access New.net domains do so either (a) via recursives Steve that rely on USG-root but augment with NN domains, or (b) user Steve machines that have the NN client plugin (which still relies Steve on the USG-root). So, New.net does not contribute significantly Steve to the use of a non-USG root. Thanks for making things so perfectly clear, Steve. d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TribalWise http://www.tribalwise.com t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You)
turn off the new.net root servers and see if any press gets written about the event. better yet, change your domain name to use a TLD that isn't served by one of the ICANN roots, and see how many customers you get.
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did NotTell You)
Steve most Internet users who Steve can see/access New.net domains do so either (a) via recursives Steve that rely on USG-root but augment with NN domains, or (b) user Steve machines that have the NN client plugin (which still relies Steve on the USG-root). So, New.net does not contribute significantly Steve to the use of a non-USG root. Of course;-)... It should be patently obvious that most people want to see The Whole Internet when they decide they want to see some sites that are not included in the ICANNIC root. So, any rational arrangement to make non-ICANNIC TLDs visible to users will arrange to be additive, as compared to exclusionary. So, the situation is very simple: The ICANNIC ROOT is EXCLUSIONARY, so The other roots must be INCLUSIONARY. So, the ICANNIC root will always have more users, no matter what anyone does, short of converting the ICANNIC ROOT to be INCLUSIONARY. Thus this whole discussion thread is just plain silly, as long as the ICANNIC root remains EXCLUSIONARY. But, maybe some good will come from it because it puts the blurred ICANNIC game in plain sight. ICANN stands alone in its EXCLUSIVNESS, while arguing that there must only be one root. All others must die! So, now the real issue becomes totally clear. Enjoy;-)...\Stef
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
Michael, Wednesday, November 27, 2002, 8:50:23 AM, you wrote: Michael [cc's trimmed] Michael Regardless of the specifics of this case, I think a good rule would be to Michael say that all bounced messages on any IETF list MUST be archived on a Michael separate 'bounced' list. To whom would this suggestion best be directed? Michael, Are you offering to pay for the lifetime subsidy for this archive service that you are suggesting? The form of you suggestion means that there is no limit to the number of messages that might need archiving. d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TribalWise http://www.tribalwise.com t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
I second this. If some WG wants to maintain such a bounced list, that's fine, but there isn't sufficient reason for it to be a requirement. It's too bad that the exponentially increasing volume of spam has such corrosive effect but that is the reality. Every IETF WG list I have anything to do with has spam filtration and/or moderation of various sorts. And I know exactly what the response from those who claim to represent openness will be to this message. But the fact is that, for the vast majority of IETF WG mailing lists, eliminating spam filtration or moderation would greatly decrease participation and decrease input. I don't give a damn about personal opinions that everyone should be able to do their own high quality spam filtration and or be willing to just hit D. I'm talking about reality and they don't. The minor additional effort by those not subscribed to subscribe or get themselves added to the can-post-but-not-subscribed-list or send the contribution to the WG chair for posting is certainly a cost and may eliminate some input but I'm satisfied from the consensus in WGs where this has been discussed that these effects are dwarfed by the loss of input and participation that would occur if filtration and moderation were eliminated. Donald PS: The namedroppers list is a special case because of persistent attempts over a long period to use it for purposes outside of the charter of the WG. Becasue of this, it has been found necessary by the WG chairs for human judgement to be used more than on any other WG mailing list. The ADs and IESG and IETF chair, who represent and are selected by the IETF community, are and have for a long time been fully aware of this. The periodic waves of complaint messages on the subject posted to the IETF list are primarily a waste of everyone's time since the policies are supported by the consensus in the working groups involved. On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Randy Presuhn wrote: Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:55:49 -0800 (PST) From: Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued Hi - Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:50:23 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Regardless of the specifics of this case, I think a good rule would be to say that all bounced messages on any IETF list MUST be archived on a separate 'bounced' list. To whom would this suggestion best be directed? ... As someone who has maintained a couple of WG mailing lists for several years, I'd object to the imposition of such a requirement. The amount of spam, especially *large* (megabyte or more) viral messages, directed at WG mailing lists makes keeping all the trash a highly unattractive proposition. (Much of the viral spam I see bears the forged addresses of legitimate subscribers, so I have to resort to other mechanisms to keep the lists clean.) -- Randy Presuhn BMC Software, Inc. SJC-1.3141 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2141 North First Street Tel: +1 408 546-1006 San José, California 95131 USA -- My opinions and BMC's are independent variables. -- -- == Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [EMAIL PROTECTED] 155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did NotTell You)
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Dave Crocker wrote: if new.net were so sure of the efficacy of their approach, why do they (redundantly) use new.net in the ICANN/IANA root? they want to be backwards compatible with the old legacy internet.
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
Olafur Gudmundsson writes: Ask Randy to put your posting address on the approved posters list. Messages are not being bounced with explanations of how to set them up as known addresses. Messages are being SILENTLY DISCARDED. (Misdirecting them to some obscure web page would have essentially the same effect.) You say the problem is that _I_ am not doing something. But a whole bunch of namedroppers messages from _other_ people have also been listed as coming from non-subscribers. How many more messages have been lost--- or deliberately thrown away by Bush? THE PROCEDURE IS FLAWED! As for my own sender address [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bush has already taken manual action---but what he did was _not_ adding the address to a list of known addresses. Instead, he started putting my subscription address on top of all my messages to the list---shortly after I had informed him that I kept _that_ address private to limit the number of people who can forge unsubscription requests. I don't care whether Bush's decisions can be adequately explained by stupidity. The decisions shouldn't be made by hand in the first place. The only acceptable ways to process a message to a standardization mailing list are (1) to immediately pass it through unchanged to the subscribers or (2) to immediately bounce it. The decision between #1 and #2 must be made by objective standards. The bounces must clearly and thoroughly explain the standards. The standards must allow the sender to straightforwardly arrange for #1. ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
PS: The namedroppers list is a special case because of persistent attempts over a long period to use it for purposes outside of the charter of the WG. might that be because the namedroppers list is seen as a descendant of the namedroppers lists that has existed since circa 1980 as a general forum for name service discussion?
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
The policy of namedroppers is posted to the list monthly. No one can claim they do not know that policy. I do not see much relavence to what the policy of a mailing list with the same user name at a different host 22 years ago was. You are grasping at staws. perhaps not, but in some circles it is common wisdom that if you want to start a new working group, it needs a new mailing list, in order to discourage hold-over discussions from the old lists. Keith
